I've been sceptical to statistics ever since i read a book titled 'How to lie with statistics'. It seems people - politicians in particular - can and do twist statistics to fit whatever they prefer them to show.

That said, I too think that Text Muds are declining. Actually I think they have been on the wane ever since it was made so easy to download, start and run a stock mud. In the old days, when it still took some coding skills, the 'community was kind of 'self regulating', because every Tom, Dick or Harry couldn't start their own Mud. As it is, they can - and do - just because they can.

I have no statistics to back it up, but my general feeling is that the total number of people that are playing Text Muds is declining, and consequently the Muds tend to prey on each other. I also have a feeling that the commercials are sucking up a larger percentage of the total player base, because they can afford to advertise, and because players generally are very faithful to their first Mud, regardless of the quality.

I generally base this feeling on what I read on various discussion boards and what I see in my own Mud. In one way we could be described as heaving a 'healthy' playerbase, because it is relatively stable, and our players usually stay very long and also tend to return after they strayed. But is has never been very large. partly because we consciously target the 'smarter' players. Still, when I look at our player base now, it is only about half of what it used to be around 6 years back. (It's true that we have had some specific problems lately; we lost over half our players when our server disappeared from the face of earth some months agoand the Mud was closed down for ten days. We still haven't recovered from that totally, even though we've had a small but steady inflow of new players lately. But in general the tendency is pretty clear - a slow, but steady decline).

So what could be done to improve the situation for text Muds?

I know that I probably will be flamed for 'elitism' for saying this, but my belief is that the biggest problem for Text Muds is the sheer number of pretty crappy, next-to-stock clones that swamp the net. A player, who is totally new to Text Muds, wouldn't really have a clue about what to look for, and the statistic chances are high that they'd just make a random choice and land with one of the stock clones. If they repeat that a couple of times, they will probably be convinced that all Text Muds are more or less similar, and not very good either. The comparatively few high quality games that exist drown in the line noise.

I think the best service that the Mud listing sites could do to the community would be to filter out at least the majority of this 'line noise'. There is only one realistic way to do it, since no list owner would have the time to actually review all the listed games, and that is to make a separate, and less displayed list for 'new muds', and put everything newer than 1 year on that list. It takes at least a year's work to create an even remotely decent Mud, and most of the fly-by-night Muds disappear again before they reach that stage.

And it wouldn't be a totally negative even for the new games, since there actually are players who like to test-play, and who consciously seek out the new games even now.

1) Find a volunteer with no axe to grind and copious amounts of spare time. (Unforunately, my time isn't copiously spare, so I feel reluctant to suggest this idea because it means someone else has to do the work.)

2) Have him/her come up with the list of the top-50 populated MUDs. (Or by committee, or whatever.)

3) Have him/her come up with an average number of players logged on. (By checking the who list once in awhile at different times of the day.)

4) Publish this number.

5) Repeat the same exercise a year from now, and then a year after that,. Perhaps indefinitely.

If there is only a mild increase/decrease in the number of players, the numbers won't show a pattern. If it's signficant, there'll be a noticible rise up/down movement within two years.

Alternatively:

1) Someone should contact the top-50 populated MUDs for logs of usage over the last few years.

2) Have him/her come up with the list of the top-50 populated MUDs. (Or by committee, or whatever.)

As far as I'm aware, the two text muds with the highest number of simultaneous players are Gemstone IV and DragonRealms - but both have been steadily losing players since they left AOL. I suspect that's primarily due to their (monthy pay-to-play) payment model though, as (from what I've seen) the bigger pay-for-perks muds seem to be doing okay.

As far as I'm aware, the two text muds with the highest number of simultaneous players are Gemstone IV and DragonRealms - but both have been steadily losing players since they left AOL. I suspect that's primarily due to their (monthy pay-to-play) payment model though, as (from what I've seen) the bigger pay-for-perks muds seem to be doing okay.

Then their players should be moving to the next 48, or below (but I wouldn't expect someone to check all 1300-ish MUDs.)

Then their players should be moving to the next 48, or below (but I wouldn't expect someone to check all 1300-ish MUDs.)

Most of them end up going to World of Warcraft. The same thing happened back when Ultima Online came out. They left in droves from Gemstone to UO. But Simu maintained a healthy player base even then. Last time I checked, there are still more people logged in to Simu games now, than there were before they became an "internet" game. Prior to that they were only available to play through the online services AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe, and GEnie. When they "went internet" they had a second boost (their first was when AOL became unlimited access for no extra charge, which didn't last very long), and the population shot up again. Then the novelty of playing via internet wore off, and Simu had some administrative and staff changes, and various other things happened, and the spike dropped somewhat.

At their peak they hovered around 2000 accounts logged in during the popular time of day, if I recall correctly. That's all on one server.

Now, if my memory serves from reading discussions on their "unofficial" forum, they are usually less than 750, and usually more than 400, with occasional spikes when there are game-wide official events.

That's still more than when I used to play, and in fact when I played from Prodigy the server was closed to new logins after it hit 100 players already logged in. You'd have to just keep typing "enter" and hoping you'd slip through if someone else logged out.

Also important to note that many people who play Gemstone have multiple accounts they maintain. So that 400-750 isn't individual players, it's accounts logged in. It -could- just be 200 players total. It's probably closer to 500 though

I believe Muds aren't healthier on a whole than ever before. I believe we're starting to see a "downcline," in users as well as Mud numbers. Users is really hard to prove. Mud numbers is easier to prove.

Whose logic is better and since we finally have some statistical data about Mud Health getting worse: What are your thoughts?

I've been doing a lot of research and I think we can adapt and grow again. First we just need to acknowledge the downcline and figure out what universal changes can make up for it. I in no way believe Muds are obsolete and or inferior entertainment. I think that some issues just need to be addressed that could turn things around.

Sorry for piping in late here. I'm posting with only have read the OP's post and skimming post of the others.

I think that the number of muds created are pretty irrelevant, honestly. Tons of people start up muds thinking that they can do it better than it's ever been done before, and hosting is so much easier to get now. Muds are going up and coming down pretty rapidly, but players are pretty split up with the number available now.

Total number of users would seem to be what's important, and that seems to be incredibly difficult to get. It would have to be postulation. There are more "big muds" out there now with a steady and often growing user base. Thus, players get a lot more choice. So, while there may not be any one mud that has the old school numbers, there could easily be a larger total number spread across many more "big muds". There's definitely more people online now than back in the "good old days", and I'd really be surprised if we haven't caught quite a few of them. There's just so many online games available now. In another ten years when there's 50 huge MMOs, MMOs may never reach the 8 million account mark again simply because people are so spread out.

Anyway, even though muds may not be declining, we're not the only choice anymore. Ultimately, that means working harder for players rather than sitting back and waiting for them to come to us.

There's just so many online games available now. In another ten years when there's 50 huge MMOs, MMOs may never reach the 8 million account mark again simply because people are so spread out.

This can definately hurt MMO's. It is supremely costly to manage and maintain a huge MMO, and to lose 75 percent of your pbase to a new MMO is crippling to say the least. I personally think MMO's in the current form are a fad and cannot believe that WoW will be around in 5 years as strong as it is today.

As for MUDS, we've been through it for years upon years. Will MUDS change? Maybe. Maybe not. Do you still play D&D at tabletop? Has the number that play that gone down in the last 5 years? Do books still sell? Will they ever go away?

i feel as an ex builder of 2 muds, its at a long steady fall, as an avid player of materiamagica, the lack of players amuses me now days. but statistics show improvement! yet i seen none really anywhere

Speaking as an owner and producer of an RPI, I tend to agree with the argument presented that the RPIs have cornered a fairly stable niche. Shadows of Isildur has been steadily growing in average peak time player logins over the last couple of years, which goes against the general trend.

The statement that the pay to play muds will be the last to fall (if it ever comes to that) is also very true. There aren't any other MUDs out there that are really even competing in the same league as the market leaders like Iron Realms. It's actually kind of a shame, I'm sure Matt and co. would love a good competitor. Unfortunately I don't think there is anybody out there with the commitment, vision or skill to pull off what they did.

Nonetheless, the RPI field draws very heavily from Iron Realms players. A fair proportion of our regular players come to us from Iron Realms, having been well conditioned by the Iron Realms Mandatory RP policy, many of them want to take the step up to RPI. The quality of roleplay can be very good on Iron Realms (I played there for 3-4 years, I remember what it was like), but it would be poor business policy and bad for the game balance (which is Iron Realm's big strength) if they went as far as RPIs do with roleplay.

So as long as the big pay-to-plays exist, RPIs will probably continue to exist. We have to get better though. Numbers will probably decline, and we need very much to make the most of what we have, to keep our market share as strong as possible. Number of players is a slippery slope. The less players you have, the less room you have to do certain things that the players enjoy, and the less in game economy, in game interaction, and whatnot works. Which in turn can lead to lower numbers.

All in all though I think MUDs are healthier than some people give them credit for - at least the genres of MUD that dominate the Top 20 here on Top Muds. The day of the casual Diku / LP may be past though. But who knows what the future holds?

I haven't really noticed a change in player numbers or movement to or from Graphical games and Muds anymore than what has existed the past four years. No huge increase nor decline from NW. Increase and decline seems more seasonal than from Graphic to MUD. Though I will say that MUD to MUD movement seems to be more prominant than Graphic to MUD. Unlike the previous poster NW tends to get more players from ASF Muds than anywhere else. I'm sure many of them enjoy that style of play but want to take the step up to an more rounded and robust roleplay environment where you can achieve actual advancement.

Who knows, but simply put, I do not see the health dipping at all. I will say that MUDs have much more infighting than Graphical games. Likely founded by lack of confidence in the product and market.

I know this is old but I was wondering what the general consensus on this is now.

Also I think a major way to solve the issue about total players is to actively try to recruit from outside the general MUD world new players. That's what I attempt to do with most of my recruitment activities. The players will continue to shrink from the community as long as the community focuses mostly on itself and ignores those who have barely heard of MUDs.

Loss of players FROM the community mainly is due to; People moving on in their lives and getting into non-MUD games. Some MUDs can maintain players for a long time because of the type of player they have but a majority of players only stick around in the community for a few years. This starts to feed upon itself as people leave their MUD friends lose interest as well (to a degree) and are likely to follow suit some time after.

The community will never disappear completely but the overall enjoyment of the community suffers when the players are so few they end up rationed amongst the available MUDs.

I know this is old but I was wondering what the general consensus on this is now.

Also I think a major way to solve the issue about total players is to actively try to recruit from outside the general MUD world new players. That's what I attempt to do with most of my recruitment activities. The players will continue to shrink from the community as long as the community focuses mostly on itself and ignores those who have barely heard of MUDs.

Loss of players FROM the community mainly is due to; People moving on in their lives and getting into non-MUD games. Some MUDs can maintain players for a long time because of the type of player they have but a majority of players only stick around in the community for a few years. This starts to feed upon itself as people leave their MUD friends lose interest as well (to a degree) and are likely to follow suit some time after.

The community will never disappear completely but the overall enjoyment of the community suffers when the players are so few they end up rationed amongst the available MUDs.

Wow, resurrecting long-dead threads. :P

My opinion on the matter is still exactly the same as it was back in early 2008 (I gave the first reply to the OP).

However, in the past two years, I have become more involved with community work and so I'm painfully more aware of in-production MUDs. It seems to me that while player numbers are dwindling (on most MUDs that I've tried, very few can boast a base that's even as half as strong as what it may have been or even was several years ago), the number of MUDs being opened continues to rise - which suggests that the entire argument that the number of MUDs is an indication of the health of the entire MUDverse is extremely unsound.

Most of the MUDs that I am aware of that are being worked on sound like carbon copies of what we already have in the community, and I doubt that seeing 10 more stock MUDs open is going to do us any good.

On the brighter side, many of these in-production MUDs appear to have a great deal of work going into them, as well as lively advertising. I know of at least five games (in alpha and beta) that appear to be very strong candidates for being "successful" long term. A concentrated effort from a few very high-quality games may be just what we need to get the ball rolling again.

I don't think you'll ever find a consensus, as some people have been announcing the death of text muds for the last two decades, while others continue to start up new muds all the time. But I have made a couple of observations.

The main difference between a text mud and a graphical MMO lies in the client - text muds are usually designed to work with any client, while the MMOs have their own which provides graphics and sound. But it is becoming increasingly popular for muds to offer their players custom/ised clients with graphical interfaces, and several client developers have been introducing ways to make this easier for mud owners to achieve. I think we're going to see this trend continue, with some muds edging their way into the fringes of the MMO and browser-game markets.

Conversely, there also seems to be an increasing number of visually impaired players drifting towards text muds - either fully or partially blind, these players enjoy gaming as much as anyone else, but can't really play the graphical MMOs. Introducing a few blind-friendly features results in your mud name being thrown around in their community: currently around 20% of my active players use screen readers.

I haven't seen a large change since my previous post here (about 5 down if you want to read it). The only change I have seen is a few more people from WoW and other Graphic MMO's have become turned off with the roleplay there and joined the text community.

As for personal clients. I disagree in creating personal clients with robust sound and graphics. I maintain that the beauty of the text world is text and description and is only muddied (no pun intended) by premade clients that you must download or hugely graphic based web clients. I see the enjoyment of them but find that the large playerbase at NWA have come here to get away from that not embrace it. The argument is that when they want these massively graphical clients they play WoW or Runescape that completely blow away anything the text community could hope to compete with.

I am not against those MUDs that use or like the personal graphic based clients. We just don't for the reasons above and several more that are specific to how we gain graphic players to our text environment.

As for personal clients. I disagree in creating personal clients with robust sound and graphics. I maintain that the beauty of the text world is text and description and is only muddied (no pun intended) by premade clients that you must download or hugely graphic based web clients. I see the enjoyment of them but find that the large playerbase at NWA have come here to get away from that not embrace it. The argument is that when they want these massively graphical clients they play WoW or Runescape that completely blow away anything the text community could hope to compete with.

I am not against those MUDs that use or like the personal graphic based clients. We just don't for the reasons above and several more that are specific to how we gain graphic players to our text environment.

Agreed, although there are two benefits that most MUDs possess that most of the MMOs don't have. The first is the cost to play, or lack thereof. Regardless, if people want graphics and sound, they are more likely going to a WoW or other such MMO to satiate their H&S needs.

Quote:

...few more people from WoW and other Graphic MMO's have become turned off with the roleplay there and joined the text community.

That's the second benefit of MU*s over graphical MMOs. The flexibility of text allows for so much more than can possibly be stuffed into MMOs. And while MMOs have their ability for text interface, it requires a switch in mindset from a purely visual reaction to the text interface to replicate such nuances. In the end, it's a very awkward and very shallow substitute for the simplicity and elegance of a complete-text form.

Agreed, although there are two benefits that most MUDs possess that most of the MMOs don't have. The first is the cost to play, or lack thereof. Regardless, if people want graphics and sound, they are more likely going to a WoW or other such MMO to satiate their H&S needs.

This is definately true at least now. If any text MUD jumped to the Multi Server platform (which is required when you reach between 750 and 1000 players), that would change in a big way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by prof1515

That's the second benefit of MU*s over graphical MMOs. The flexibility of text allows for so much more than can possibly be stuffed into MMOs. And while MMOs have their ability for text interface, it requires a switch in mindset from a purely visual reaction to the text interface to replicate such nuances. In the end, it's a very awkward and very shallow substitute for the simplicity and elegance of a complete-text form.

As for personal clients. I disagree in creating personal clients with robust sound and graphics. I maintain that the beauty of the text world is text and description and is only muddied (no pun intended) by premade clients that you must download or hugely graphic based web clients.

I'm not talking of clients you must download, but of recommended clients for those looking to play (particularly first-time players). In the old days many muds didn't even bother with websites, and simply advertised a telnet address, but things are changing. Many players don't even take a mud seriously these days unless it has an attractive website with decent information about the mud, and if you're marketing at first-time mudders it makes a lot of sense to have a section describing how to connect.

A basic telnet client is not going to offer the same features as a dedicated mud client, so if you want newbies to have the best possible first experience, it makes sense to recommend a decent client. This is pretty common - I notice you do it as well, offering a Java client and recommending VIPMud and GMud.

However quite a few muds are starting to offer something a little more graphical for those who prefer it. This doesn't change the nature of the game, it's simply a prettier interface - you could even use graphics to emphasis the text-based nature of the mud for example, providing a parchment-coloured background within a frame designed like an ancient tome.

Either way, love it or hate it, it's becoming more popular. I'm guessing that in a decade or so people will view graphical interfaces in much the same way players today view ANSI colour (which was also opposed by many when people first started using it).

I'm not talking of clients you must download, but of recommended clients for those looking to play (particularly first-time players)

In that case I agree. The newer clients are better and if there were a better java client I'd like that as well. The current Java client we use is better than telnet but is missing alot of features that are on the Flash client. I'm not a fan of the flash client - mainly because of the flash security protocol. It would be nice if someone revamped the Java client with the features of the flash. It wouldn't take alot, I just don't have the time or the inclination.